Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Entertainment, Inc.

Bad Law
705 F.3d 1108·2013 WL 264645·105 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1574·84 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1008·2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1586
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 24, 201311-56357California1,352 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kozinski, J.

The last time Mattel and MGA were here, we predicted that “the entire case will probably need to be retried.” Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 616 F.3d 904 , 918 (9th Cir.2010). On remand, the district court agreed and ordered a new trial. The jury rejected Mattel’s claim that MGA infringed Mattel’s copyrights by producing Bratz dolls. While Mattel doesn’t challenge that result, it does challenge the jury’s verdict that Mattel misappropriated MGA’s trade secrets, and the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs to MGA'under the Copyright Act.

I. BACKGROUND

In late 2006, Mattel sought leave to amend its complaint by adding a claim that MGA had stolen its trade secrets. The district court allowed Mattel to plead the claim, but only as a counterclaim. Then, in 2010, after we had decided the first appeal, MGA filed a new claim against Mattel for misappropriating its trade secrets. See Cal. Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ.Code § 3426 et seq. Mattel moved to dismiss MGA’s claim, arguing that the statute of limitations had run because the events at issue happened more than three years earlier. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6 . The district court denied Mattel’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.